While the original 2015 International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunal pegged the baseline damages at $562.5 million following the unilateral termination of a high-value satellite agreement, years of accumulated pre- and post-judgment interest have pushed the outstanding claim past $2 billion. In an opinion written by Circuit Judge Lucy H. Koh on behalf of a three-judge panel, the federal appellate court held that American courts retain valid subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over the Indian state enterprise under the statutory framework of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
The multi-billion-dollar legal war traces back more than two decades to a 2005 commercial contract under which Antrix agreed to build, launch, and operate two specialized satellites while leasing 70 MHz of prized S-band electromagnetic spectrum to Devas to roll out mobile broadband and multimedia services across India. In 2011, amid domestic political scrutiny over spectrum allocation and a policy shift by the Indian government to reserve orbital capacity strictly for national security and strategic needs, Antrix scrapped the agreement.
Devas took the matter to international arbitration before an ICC tribunal, which concluded that Antrix had unlawfully repudiated the contract and awarded substantial damages. Subsequent enforcement actions quickly turned into a protracted legal labyrinth after Indian authorities initiated fraud and corruption probes into the transaction, ordered the liquidation of Devas, and had Indian domestic courts move to set aside the arbitral decision.
The latest Ninth Circuit ruling comes on the heels of a landmark United States Supreme Court intervention that reversed an earlier appellate decision and established that the FSIA’s arbitration exception does not require claimants to show separate "minimum contacts" beyond the statute’s explicit requirements. In addressing the remaining threshold questions, Judge Koh wrote that the arbitration exception contains no requirement that the underlying business dealings touch United States commerce.
Crucially, in a first-of-its-kind holding for the circuit, the panel ruled that the procedural doctrine of forum non conveniens cannot be invoked to dodge foreign arbitral award confirmation under the New York Convention, emphasizing that foreign courts have no legal mechanism to attach commercial assets belonging to Antrix that sit within the United States.
While the appellate decision affirmed judgment registration rights in favor of Devas Multimedia America Inc., the panel vacated an earlier order permitting three Mauritian shareholder entities of Devas to register the judgment, citing limitations in legal standing. The appellate judges also instructed the federal district court in Washington state to evaluate what legal weight should be accorded to Indian court decrees that previously set aside the underlying arbitration award.
Despite these ongoing procedural inquiries, the Ninth Circuit’s precedent-setting verdict injects fresh momentum into Devas’s worldwide asset-recovery operations, significantly ratcheting up financial exposure and overseas asset-seizure risks for Indian public-sector entities conducting business abroad.